A Conservative View

Praying that Donald Trump can save America in 2024!

Archive for the tag “Mind Control”


I hope everyone enjoyed Part one last week. This part two should at least generate some interest. We the people own this country, not Congress, the Executive or the Judicial Systems. If the people give up they deserve losing their freedoms. 

Rather than try to sift through millions of words, books and articles to try to summarize more information, I will select some specific exerts from the source I primarily used to introduce you to Tavistock. If I have stirred up your interest, I accomplished my mission. If we continue to lose our rights as American citizens, willingly, we deserve a future of doing exactly what the government tells us to do. I am working on an article to help prepare you for the next thing our government will take away, our right to vote. Laugh if you desire but this day is coming faster than you will believe. Why, because of so many people have decided to avoid voting as they believe it is a waste of time.  C Brewer 

TAVISTOCK = Mind Control Professionals.

“A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy — *the use of drugs*. The infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like “guinea pigs”, resulted in several deaths. The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but no one was ever indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid. Roosevelt’s adviser, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg, who had financed Hitler, set up the *Institute for Policy Studies* to “promote the drug”. The result was the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, the “student revolution”, financed with $25 million dollars from the CIA! Still think “being a hippie” was cool.”

“One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund. The CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions. The patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments. One victim, the wife of a member of the Canadian Parliament, is now suing the U.S. companies who provided the drug for the CIA. All the records of the CIA’s drug testing program were ordered destroyed by the head of MK Ultra.”

“Because *all efforts of the Tavistock Institute are directed toward producing cyclical collapse*, the effect of the CIA programs are tragically apparent. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., writing in the Washington Post, August 20, 1984, cites the “squalid consequences of the 60s radicals in SDS”, as resulting in “the growing rate of illegitimacy, petty lawlessness, drug addiction, welfare, VD, and mental illness” in this country and throughout the world.”

“This is the “legacy” of the Warburgs and the CIA. Their principal agency, the *Institute for Policy Studies*, was funded by James Paul Warburg; its co-founder was Marcus Raskin, protege of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy had Raskin appointed to the post of President Kennedy’s personal representative on the National Security Council, and in 1963, funded Students for Democratic Society, through which the CIA operated the drug culture.”

“The “tax exempt” Tavistock Institute currently operates a staggering *$6 Billion Dollar* per year network of foundations within the United States – ALL of it funded by taxpayer money.”

“Ten major institutions are under Tavistock’s direct control – with 400 subsidiaries and 3,000 study groups and a variety of private think tanks, which conceive many of the psychological programs to exert even more control of the New World Order over the American populace.

“The Stanford Research Institute, which adjoins the Hoover Institution, is a $150 Million Dollar a year operation with 3,300 employees. It conducts program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. SRI is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting “mind control” and the “behavioral” sciences.”

“One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is The Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance (former Secretary of State and director of the Rockefeller Foundation) and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).”

“One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for ‘controlling world agriculture’. Its director, Kenneth Wernimont, set up Rockefeller-controlled agricultural “programs” throughout Mexico and Latin America. The independent farmer is a great threat to the New World Order, because he produces for himself and because his produce can be converted into capital, which gives him independence.”

“In the United States, the foundations are presently engaged in the same type of “war of extermination” against the American farmer.”

“The traditional formula of land plus labor for the farmer has been altered, due to the farmer’s need for purchasing power, to buy industrial goods needed in his farming operations. Because of this need for capital, the farmer is especially vulnerable to the New World Order’s manipulation of interest rates, which is bankrupting him. Just as in the Soviet Union, in the early 1930s, when Stalin ordered the Kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural trusts. The ‘Brookings Institution’ and other foundations originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy the American farmer, a replay of the Soviet tragedy in Russia, with one difference – the farmer will be allowed to survive *if* he becomes a slave worker of the giant trusts!”

“Once the citizen becomes aware of the true role of the foundations, he can understand the high interest rates, high taxes, destruction of the family, degradation of the churches into forums for revolution, the subversion of the universities into CIA cesspools of drug addiction, and the halls of government into sewers of international espionage and intrigue. The American citizen can now understand why *every agent of the federal government is against him*. The “alphabet” agencies (FBI, IRS, CIA, BATF, et al) must make war on the citizen in order to carry out the programs of the foundations.”

“The foundations are in direct violation of their charters, which commit them to do “charitable” work, because they make *no grants*, which are not part of a political goal. The charge has been made, and never denied, that the Heritage-AEI network has at least two KGB moles on its staff. The employment of professional intelligence operatives as “charitable” workers, as was done in the Red Cross Mission to Russia in 1917, exposes the sinister political economic and social goals which the New World Order requires the foundations to achieve through their “bequests”.

“Not only is this tax fraud, because the foundations are granted tax exemption solely to do charitable work, but it is *criminal syndicalism*, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States of America, Constitutional Law 213, Corpus Juris Secundum 16. For the first time, the close interlocking of the foundation “syndicate” has been revealed by the names of its principle incorporators — Daniel Coit Gilman, who incorporated the Peabody Fund and the John Slater Fund, and became an incorporator of the General Education Board (now the Rockefeller Foundation); Gilman, who also incorporated the Russell Trust in 1856, later became an incorporator of the Carnegie Institution with Andrew Dickson White (Russell Trust) and Frederic A. Delano.”

“Delano was an original incorporator of the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Daniel Coit Gilman incorporated the Russell Sage Foundation with Cleveland H. Dodge of the National City Bank. These foundation incorporators have been closely linked with the Federal Reserve System, the War Industries Board of World War I, the OSS of World War II and the CIA. They have also been closely linked with the American International Corporation, which was formed to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Delano, an uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914. His brother-in-law founded the influential Washington law firm of Covington and Burling. The Delanos and other ruling families of the New World Order trace their lineage directly back to William of Orange and the regime which granted the charter of the Bank of England.”

The following is a partial list institutions that fund the Uniform Law Foundation, whose function is to make certain that the Uniform Commercial Code remains the “sole” instrument for conducting business within the United States.

Tavistock Institutions of the United States

Flow Laboratories, Merle Thomas Corporation, Walden Research, Arthur D. Little, G.E. TEMPO, Planning Research Corporation, Brookings Institution, Esalen Institute, Hudson Institute and the National Training Laboratories (NTL).

“National Training Laboratories (NTL). Founded in 1947 by members of the Tavistock network in the United States and located originally on an estate in Bethel, Maine, NTL had as its explicit purpose the brainwashing of leaders of the government, educational institutions, and corporate bureaucracies in the Tavistock method, and then using these “leaders” to either themselves run Tavistock group sessions in their organizations or to hire other similarly trained group leaders to do the job. The “nuts and bolts” of the NTL operation revolves around the particular form of Tavistock degenerate psychology known as “group dynamics,” developed by German Tavistock operative Kurt Lewin, who immigrated to the United States in the 1930s and whose students founded NTL.”

“In a Lewinite brainwashing group, a number of individuals from varying backgrounds and personalities are manipulated by a “group leader”, to form a “consensus” of opinion, achieving a new “group identity.” The key to the process is the creation of a controlled environment, in which stress is introduced (sometimes called dissonance) to crack an individual’s belief structure. Using the peer pressure of other group members, the individual is “cracked,” and a new personality emerges with new values. The degrading experience causes the person to deny that any change has taken place. In that way, an individual is brainwashed without the victim knowing what has taken place.”

“This method is the same, with some minor modification, used in all so-called “sensitivity groups” or “T-groups,” or in the more extreme rock’n-roll-drugs-sex counter-culture form, “touchy-feely groups,” such as the kind popularized from the 1960s onward by the Esalen Institute, which was set up with the help of NTL.”

“From the mid-1950s onward, NTL put the majority of the nation’s corporate leaderships through such brainwashing programs, while running similar programs for the State Department, the Navy, the Department of Education, and other sections of the federal bureaucracy. There is no firm estimate of the number of Americans who have been put through this process in last 40 years at either NTL, or as it is now known the NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences, which is based in Rosslyn, Virginia, or its West Coast base of operations, the Western Training Laboratories in Group Development, or in various satellite institutions. The most reliable estimate is in the several millions.”

“One of the groups that went through the NTL mill in the 1950s was the leadership of the National Education Association, the largest organization of teachers in the United States. Thus, the NEA’s outlook has been “shaped” by Tavistock, through the NTL. In 1964, the NTL Institute became a direct part of the NEA, with the NTL setting up “group sessions” for all of its affiliates. With funding from the Department of Education, the NTL Institute drafted the programs for the training of the nation’s primary and secondary school teachers, and has a hand as well in developing the content of educational “reforms,” including OBE.”

“Also known as the “International Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences”, this institute is a brainwashing center in artificial stress training, whereby participants suddenly find themselves immersed in defending themselves against vicious accusations. NTL takes in the National Education Association, the largest teacher group in the United States.”

“While officially denouncing “racism”, it is interesting to note that NTL, working with NEA, produced a paper proposing education vouchers which would separate the hard-to-teach children from the brighter ones, and funding would be allocated according to the number of difficult children who would be separated from those who progressed at a normal rate. The proposal was not taken up.”

Let me stop now as this is a never ending saga that will blow your mind. I encourage you to get on Google and type in Tavistock and you will get a lifetime of knowledge. We don’t like to believe things like this are possible but they still thrive as you will see. If you wish to get deeper into what has happened in America, search some of the following places and review the actual things they did.

University of Pennsylvania – Wharton School of Finance and Commerce; Institute for Social Research; Institute For Policy Studies (IPS); Stanford Research Institute (SRI); and the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (MIT), Alfred P. Sloan School Of Management.

Research specific from the list above will curl your hair but one last recognizable entity is the RAND Research And Development Corporation.

RAND is THE think tank most beholden to Tavistock and certainly the most prestigious vehicle for control of United States policies at every level. Specific RAND policies that became operative include our ICBM program, prime analyses for U.S. foreign policy making, instigator of space programs, U.S. nuclear policies, corporate analyses, hundreds of projects for the military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to the use of mind altering drugs like peyote, LSD (the covert MK-ULTRA operation which lasted for 20 years).

There are thousands of highly important companies, government institutions and organizations that make use of RANDS’s services. To list them all would be impossible. RAND was once accused of being commissioned by the USSR to work out terms of surrender of the United States Government, an accusation that went all the way to the United States Senate, where it was taken up by Senator Symington and subsequently fell victim to scorn poured out by the establishment press. “Brainwashing” remains the primary function of RAND.

History is filled with knowledge hidden by the media for money. I hope you push yourself to learn and share with me.

GOD SAVE AMERICA                 C Brewer


Sadly I no longer waste my time to gain knowledge of world happenings by watching the TV news or reading biased articles in newspapers. My friend, Dr. Forrest, sent me a message that helped me understand why the majority of the Muslim world acts in strange and stupid ways. I have edited and paraphrased the message and I have no idea who compiled the facts presented. To establish creditability, I have worked in several Muslim countries and witnessed things most Americans would never believe could happen in a civilized and humane society. We all see the demonstrations on TV and let me qualify they are usually from the Middle East, Africa or Europe.

I spent many years working in Indonesia, a Muslim country that spans several time zones, and I never witnessed the mayhem we see elsewhere. The people are warm and friendly like Mexicans used to be and actually work for a living. Like America used to be, the Indonesian government actually helps the private sector create jobs. I make this disclaimer as all Muslims are not lazy, government supported, dissident minded or full time demonstrating idiots.

When you watch TV and see people throwing sticks, stones and other projectiles at an armored vehicle that has a machine gun mounted on it, what is your reasoning for this kind of behavior? Obviously they are pissed off about something but only morons would attack a tank manned with trained military individuals with rocks, sticks and homemade torches. Does this make sense to you?

The following facts should may give you a hint into why these misguided people act like animals. It appears that Mohammad designed this fate to be able to control the Muslim world by dumbing down the people. I also am certain that liberals and progressives are using similar mind control methods to achieve the same kind of controls over Europeans and Americans to gain absolute power. Different methods to reach the same objectives. You can read some of my earlier articles with facts to support my statement. 


To research go to Wikipedia, “Cousin Marriage”, and far down in the article “Genetics” you will find a lot of factual support.

Nikolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world: the disastrous results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of first-cousins.

This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world.

This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world, since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage.

The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool,   including extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health.

According to Sennels, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred. In Pakistan, the numbers approach 70%. Even in England, more than half of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins and in Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.

The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim countries: 67% in Saudi Arabia, 64% in Jordan and Kuwait, 63% in Sudan, 60% in Iraq, and 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

According to the BBC, this Pakistani, Muslim-inspired inbreeding is thought to explain the probability that a British Pakistani family is more than 13 times as likely to have children with recessive genetic disorders. While Pakistanis are responsible for three percent of the births in the UK, they account for 33% of children with genetic birth defects.

The risks of what are called autosomal recessive disorders such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy is 18 times higher and the risk of death due to malformations is 10 times higher.

Other negative consequences of inbreeding include a 100 percent increase in the risk of still births and a 50% increase in the possibility that a child will die during labor.

Lowered intellectual capacity is another devastating consequence of Muslim marriage patterns. Research shows that children of consanguineous marriages lose 10-16 points off their IQ and that social abilities develop much slower in inbred babies. The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official demarcation for being classified as “retarded,” increases by an astonishing 400 percent among children of cousin marriages. (Similar effects were seen in the Paranoiac dynasties in ancient Egypt and in the British royal family, where inbreeding was the norm for a significant period of time.)

In Denmark, non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the intelligence test required for entrance into the Danish army.

Sennels says that “the ability to enjoy and produce knowledge and abstract thinking is simply lower in the Islamic world.” He points out that the Arab world translates just 330 books every year, about 20% of what Greece alone does. In the last 1,200 years of Islam, just 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic, about what Spain does in a single year. Seven out of 10 Turks have never even read a book.

Sennels points out the difficulties this creates for Muslims seeking to succeed in the West. “A lower IQ, together with a religion that denounces critical thinking, surely makes it harder for many Muslims to have success in our high-tech knowledge societies.”

Only nine Muslims have ever won the Nobel Prize, and five of those were for the “Peace Prize.” According to Nature magazine, Muslim countries produce just 10 percent of the world average when it comes to scientific research measured by articles per million inhabitants.

In Denmark, Sennels’ native country, Muslim children are grossly over represented among children with special needs. One-third of the budget for Danish schools is consumed by special education and anywhere from 51% to 70% of retarded children with physical handicaps in Copenhagen have an immigrant background. Learning ability is severely affected as well. Studies indicated that 64% of school children with Arabic parents are still illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The immigrant drop-out rate in Danish high schools is twice that of the native-born.

Mental illness is also a product. The closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness. The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of patients in Denmark’s biggest ward for clinically insane criminals have an immigrant background.

The U.S. is not immune. According to Sennels, “One study based on 300,000 Americans shows that the majority of Muslims in the USA have a lower income, are less educated, and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.”

Sennels concludes:

There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit  marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin  marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. This has produced overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences.

Bottom line: Islam is not simply a benign and morally equivalent alternative to the Judeo-Christian tradition. As Sennels points out, the first and biggest victims of Islam are Muslims. Simple Judeo-Christian compassion for Muslims and a common-sense desire to protect Western civilization from the ravages of Islam dictate a vigorous opposition to the spread of this dark and dangerous religion. These stark realities must be taken into account when we establish public polices dealing with immigration from Muslim countries and the building of mosques in the U.S.

Let’s hope the civilized west and the North Americans wake up before a blind naïveté about the reality of Islam destroys what remains of our Judeo-Christian culture and our domestic tranquility.

Verification articles below



Folks, we are headed for the same fate if we can’t stop our politicians from destroying our Constitution and Bill-of Rights. They are dividing the people into haves and have-nots and with uncontrolled immigration to assure we end up with a Socialist instead of a democratic Republic. Like Europe we are destroying ourselves.  C Brewer  


Progressive politicians, including our President and educators who twist minds have done more to destroy America that all of the terrorists in the past or the future.

If you are not concerned about losing your freedom or the future of the United States of America, don’t waste your time reading this message. Most people will not take the time to read over 4000 words to understand anything. Our Congressional representatives are a perfect example as most have never even read our Constitution, much less understand it.

My good friend Ron Jenkins sent me three articles related to the Constitution recently to stimulate my thinking. Due to the length and the importance of the subject I will publish just one of the articles. I hope as many people as possible will take the time read this work. Sane people will be able to see the impact our educators have used to manipulate our children’s minds. I hope this scares the daylights out of enough people to wake up and do something.

I sincerely hope enough true Americans will awaken to the impact of the Progressive movement to destroy our form of government and our free society. C Brewer

 The Constitution: Who Needs It? By Alexander C. Kafka

It’s a Monday evening in October in a warm lecture hall a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. In front of a couple dozen students in an introductory course on constitutional law, a low-key, shirt-sleeved Georgetown University professor, Louis Michael (Mike) Seidman, summarizes the ways the Constitution can be interpreted.

It can be read according to our best guesses as to the founders’ original intent. Or by how the public first understood the document, in 1789. Or by the meaning people ascribe to it now. Or by the meaning that produces the best outcome.

“Even when we can reach consensus on what the Constitution’s articles mean, there is always the question in front of us,” says the bearded 65-year-old scholar, “as to whether we should obey them.”

This former clerk for District of Columbia Circuit Judge J. Skelly Wright and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall just told a group of law students that there are times when we should ignore the Constitution?

“When you see how the law works up close, you just cannot miss the tremendous gap between the story law tells about itself and the way things actually function,” says Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown U.

Seidman doesn’t harp on the point. He moves on, as his listeners sip coffee and tap away on their laptops, to a detailed discussion of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 Supreme Court ruling, concerning a steelworkers’ strike during the Korean War, that limited presidential power.

But he explores his constitutional skepticism in depth in his forthcoming book from Oxford University Press, On Constitutional Disobedience, part of the publisher’s big-picture Inalienable Rights series of constitutional critiques.

Seidman’s argument boils down to this: We the current American people are not the people who agreed in the 18th century to be governed by the Constitution (that’s assuming that the colonists themselves agreed, a proposition about which he is also dubious). More practically, politicians, judges, and advocacy groups contort the Constitution’s often vaguely worded precepts to match whatever they’re pushing for. That makes citizens cynical and distracts us from considering what policies would be best for the country in regard to health-care finance, gun control, antiterrorism, and countless other matters.

Invoking the Constitution, Seidman says in an interview, is often “a disguised way of fighting out the merits” of an issue and is usually “profoundly beside the point.”

Although Seidman is willing to bypass the Constitution, he still teaches it thoroughly, nuances and all. “There is this complicated body of constitutional doctrines,” he says, “and I view my obligation as to make sure the students understand it and use it to write briefs and opinion letters—all the things that lawyers do in constitutional cases.”

“At the same time, I do want the students to think, and think hard, about what I take to be really fundamental questions about the role the Constitution ought to play.”

Without wanting to get specific, Seidman says his experiences clerking at the Supreme Court and a few years working in the D.C. Public Defender Service helped inform his constitutional wariness. “When you see how the law works up close, you just cannot miss the tremendous gap between the story law tells about itself and the way things actually function,” he says. The Supreme Court “is more arbitrary, more at the mercy of eccentric views of individual justices, … less principle-driven” than one would suppose or hope.

Seidman doesn’t ask us to forget that the Constitution exists. It could be, he writes, “a symbol of national unity if we focused on its commands at the most abstract level.” For instance, “almost everyone supports liberty and equality in the abstract.” He urges embracing “the Constitution … as a work of art, designed to evoke a mood or emotion, rather than as a legal document commanding specific outcomes.”

Seidman knows that his viewpoint might be perceived as insane—”utopian at best and just plain crazy at worst.” Among mainstream politicians, it will be considered heresy, perhaps traitorous. Even among scholars, who debate the nature of constitutionalism, “very few people think that we should give up on it altogether,” he writes.

Sanford Levinson, a law scholar from the University of Texas at Austin who is at Harvard this semester as a visiting professor, says he’s “probably more moderate than” Seidman, but that “most people would consign both of us to the far end of the spectrum.”

Levinson argues in Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, his recent book from the same Oxford Press series, that new federal and state constitutional conventions could cure at least some of the documents’ problems. The federal Constitution’s “deep structures,” like bicameralism, are good and mendable, he says.

But like Seidman, Levinson thinks that Americans are waking up to the basic dysfunctionality of government, even if they haven’t properly recognized the Constitution’s role in creating some of those problems. He cites, for instance, an October 2011 New York Times/CBS poll that found that “not only do 89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, but 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress.”

While high-profile constitutional debates focus on interpretations of controversial amendments about, say, free speech or gun control, some of the biggest obstacles to effective governance, Levinson says, are hiding in plain sight, in the Constitution’s specific, even mundane-sounding “settled” basic articles—the Electoral College, age restrictions for political office, term limits, and so on.

To realize how far out there Seidman’s and Levinson’s views might appear, consider the cautions voiced in 2001 by Kathleen Sullivan, then a law professor at Stanford, now chair of the national appellate practice at the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and sometimes mentioned as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court. In “Constitutional Amendmentitis,” published in The American Prospect, Sullivan responded to a rash of Republican-sponsored amendments “that would impose Congressional term limits, authorize laws against flag burning, give the president a line-item veto, abolish the Electoral College, outlaw abortion, prohibit remedial school busing, and authorize school prayer, to name a few.”

Those proposals, she wrote, are “cause for alarm, even apart from any of their individual merits. For there are strong structural reasons for amending the Constitution only reluctantly and as a last resort. This strong presumption against constitutional amendment has been bedrock in our constitutional history, and there is no good reason for overturning it now.”

And that was on the question of tinkering with the Constitution, never mind ignoring it.

There are, says Stephen Siegel, a professor at DePaul University’s College of Law, longstanding, reputable veins of critical academic commentary about the Constitution—on how rulings are affected by popular opinion and judges’ ideological backgrounds. Seidman’s occasional collaborator Mark Tushnet has critiqued judicial review, for instance. A recent book by Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard Posner, The Behavior of Federal Judges (Harvard University Press), argues that rulings reflect a complex blend of judges’ ideology and legalistic reasoning.

In From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford, 2004), the Harvard law professor Michael Klarman scrutinizes the push and pull between court rulings and activism in favor of and in opposition to civil rights. In his 2010 book, The Living Constitution (also part of Oxford’s Inalienable Rights series), David Strauss, of the University of Chicago, writes about how law can evolve free of the constraints of constitutional originalism without turning into an anything-goes jurisprudence. And so on.

In other words, says Siegel, there is a long tradition of discussion about how constitutional ideals fare in the real world. That includes arguments, like Seidman’s, regarding what hold an 18th-century document should have over modern Americans, and regarding how much guidance the Constitution can offer in creating effective public policies in an ever-changing society. During his 2005 confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, John Roberts famously compared judges to umpires calling balls and strikes. Siegel says that any legal scholar offering that view would be laughed off the lectern.

But Seidman’s approach, calling for a reassessment of whether the Constitution is fundamentally valid and should be obeyed, goes beyond that. And if Seidman’s argument is not something that’s ripe to be acted on in some short-term way, Siegel says, neither is it to be shrugged off as if from outer space. Seidman and Levinson are, he says, “very senior, very established, very credible, and very respected people in this field,” and their “analysis is to be taken seriously.”

Seriously, maybe. But with alarm and some suspicion from the perspective of constitutional originalists, who think the document’s meanings can and should be found in the intents of its authors. If Seidman is toward one end of the spectrum of constitutional interpretation, originalists might be seen as at the opposite end.

Michael Rappaport, director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law, is less sanguine than is Siegel about dismissing Roberts’s balls-and-strikes metaphor. Yes, it’s too simplistic, but that’s in part because the academic and judicial establishment has been so smitten over the last 75 to 100 years with “living Constitution” interpretations that sufficient historical work hasn’t been done to understand the context and intent of the framers’ wording.

Although he and Seidman “look at the world very differently” from a political standpoint, Rappaport says, he shares Seidman’s frustration over the way the Constitution is stretched to fit any and every policy argument. However, that’s not the fault of the Constitution, he says, but largely of the living-constitutionalists who have manipulated its meanings.

In seeking a legal and societal basis other than the Constitution, Rappaport says, one quickly encounters the daunting, even insurmountable “we” problem. “Part of the reason to have a constitution is to allow people of different political stripes to feel comfortable living together,” he says. Who is the “we” that will decide the rules that should substitute for the philosophy and processes our system has been built on over hundreds of years?

Seidman’s views may be extreme, but they didn’t occur suddenly. He has taught law since America’s bicentennial. And over the past 36 years, he’s had ample time to anticipate critics’ objections to disobeying the Constitution. Here are his top 10 rebuttals, very roughly summarized:

1. Article VI makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.

 That just begs the question. It’s the supreme law of the land only if you obey it, and that’s what we’re debating.

2. But why would you frame a Constitution if you weren’t planning to obey it?

Of course the framers wanted to be obeyed. Anyone asserting power wants to be obeyed. But we can’t obey any and every authority who seeks to rule us.

3. “We the People” consented to the Constitution by ratifying it, and so are bound to obey it.

Constitutional disobedience may seem a radical notion, but it is a centuries-old American tradition.

Did we? Many of the framers were genuinely concerned about the country’s future. But the convention was also driven in part by speculators who had bought up Revolutionary War debt and wanted a strong federal government that would enforce taxes to ensure that the debt was paid. Other markedly unlofty considerations during constitutional negotiations included navigation rights on the Mississippi, whether states with ports would be able to collect fees from their neighbors, and whether Massachusetts Governor John Hancock would receive the founders’ support for his re-election. Even if, despite the parochial concerns, we deemed the document’s precepts worthy, remember that women, slaves, American Indians, and those without property were excluded from participating in ratification. Assent that flimsy should have no binding power over us 223 years after the Constitution took effect.

4. We can always amend what we don’t like.

Not really. Amendment is a bear, requiring two-thirds vote by both houses or a call to convention by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Then it needs ratification by three-quarters of the states—not the 13 original ones, but the 50 wildly disparate current ones. Out of some 11,000 proposed amendments, only 27 have been ratified. Ten of those, encompassing the Bill of Rights, were necessary to get the original states on board, and the 13th through 15th Amendments entailed a Civil War that almost destroyed the country and were essentially forced on the Southern states as the price of readmission to the Union. More fundamentally, the amendment argument is again circular, because at issue is whether we should obey the Constitution that sets out its provisions.

5. The framers were wise and gave us a great document to build on.

They advanced political theory in key respects, no doubt. But the framers were products of their time, and many of their notions now look weird, if not actually repugnant. Many thought it was OK for people to own other people; to ignore women, nonwhites, and people without property; and for small or sparsely populated states to carry the same authority as large and/or populated ones. “On this view,” Seidman writes, “constitutional obligation amounts to an intergenerational power grab that modern Americans should resist.” To the extent that the framers were wise, there’s nothing stopping us from keeping the provisions we like not because we have to but because we think it would be smart.

6. If we don’t obey the Constitution, anarchy will ensue.

Why? England and New Zealand function quite nicely without constitutions, don’t they? Also, we’ve often, in practice, violated, or at least dramatically stretched, constitutional precepts—sometimes, indeed, in an effort to avoid anarchy. Think of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s clashes with the judiciary over New Deal programs during the Depression. People don’t generally like anarchy and are usually good at taking sensible measures to avoid it.

7. Through Americans’ experience as a nation, we have come to believe that it is wise to obey the Constitution.

Really? How many Americans have actually thought about whether constitutional obedience leads to smart policies? And once more, the assertion is circular; it seeks to avoid the argument by claiming thatit’s not an argument worth having.

8. The framers were wise enough to write the Constitution so vaguely that we don’t need to disobey it.

That’s lukewarm praise at best. Where the Constitution is vague and ostensibly benevolent, as in the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection language, it is harmless but also toothless (see No. 10). And on some matters, it’s very specific and arguably silly—mandating, for instance, that someone who moved here as a baby can’t be president, or that someone under 30 can’t be a senator. Article I is “pretty clear” on the point that as presiding officer of the Senate, a vice president would have to “preside over his own impeachment,” Seidman notes. Grist for a Marx Brothers routine, but hardly evidence of the fathers’ wisdom.

9. The framers took the long view, whereas we might change something impulsively, in a fit of passion or a moment of crisis.

See No. 3. You’re overestimating the founders’ wisdom, and quite possibly underestimating ours. More than that—if we don’t make our best judgments about what America needs now and in the future, we’re not living up to our responsibility as citizens.

10. Well, OK, maybe the Constitution is flawed. But it’s still vital because it protects our civil liberties.

Sadly, no. In times of crisis, it hasn’t. It didn’t protect slaves. “When slavery was eventually overthrown,” Seidman writes, “it happened not because people felt bound to obey the Constitution, but because they were willing to fight a devastating war to change it.” The Constitution didn’t protect African-Americans during Jim Crow, either. It didn’t protect dissenters during the early years of the Republic under the Alien and Sedition Acts, during World War I, or during the McCarthy era. Nor did it protect Japanese-American internees during World War II.

Laws nominally protecting civil rights in 1954 didn’t truly protect minorities until civil-rights activists, a decade later, persuaded Northern whites that Southern bigotry was intolerable, Seidman argues. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison presciently doubted the ability of mere “parchment barriers,” laws on paper, to resist “the encroaching spirit of power.”

Is the Constitution currently protecting, from conservatives’ standpoint, states’ rights against federal regulations and mandates? Or, in liberals’ view, the rights of the 2.5 million Americans in prison (the highest incarceration rate in the world)? Maybe. Maybe not. The Constitution’s influence in such matters is, to say the least, murky.

How it’s interpreted, Seidman says, depends whether you’re looking at it from “classical liberal premises,” with freedom “associated with individual choice and the absence of public coercion,” or “classical republican premises,” with freedom associated with collective, democratic governance without threat of “the co-optation of state institutions by narrow, self-interested minorities.”

Even when the Supreme Court does arguably defend citizens’ rights, as in Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade, or more recently in decisions on affirmative action, women’s rights, gun control, and the death penalty, it usually isn’t acting in bold defiance of populist views, but rather reflecting those views. Why judicial decisions adhere to shifts in public opinion is mysterious, Seidman writes, but legislative sway in the courts’ budgets, or the executive and legislative workings of nomination and confirmation are probably more powerful factors than any constitutional rationale.

Yes, the Supreme Court has sometimes protected minority rights, Seidman concedes. In various eras, it has upheld the rights of slave holders and those of criminal defendants. It has outlawed prayer in public schools and upheld the right to sexually explicit expression. It has ruled in favor of white foes of affirmative action, for political speech by corporations, and picketing by a fringe group at soldiers’ funerals. But those can be considered counterexamples only if they reflect constitutional obedience and not the justices’ “own policy preferences.” And that, says Seidman, is a big if.

Constitutional disobedience may seem a radical notion, Seidman says, but it is, itself, an American tradition. Authorities have for centuries bent, if not outright broken, what they saw as constitutional edicts, usually because they considered their actions, rightly or wrongly, the wise things to do.

Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory despite his own doubts about the move’s constitutionality. Justice Robert Jackson signed Chief Justice Earl Warren’s anti-segregation opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, but records show that while Jackson felt his concurrence was politically justified, he did not, in fact, see segregation as violating the 14th Amendment. More prosaically, while senators from new states are supposed to serve six years, ever since Vermont joined the Union, in 1791, one senator from each new state has had a term shorter than six years so that elections could be staggered.

Sometimes different branches and levels of government simply disagree on what’s constitutional. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court ruled, amid widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, that its decisions were binding on all government officials, regardless of whether or not they saw the rulings as constitutionally just.

More often than not, showdowns between branches and levels of government are avoided because of a tradition of judicial supremacy. But that tradition is just that—not, Seidman says, a clearly stated constitutional foundation. We accept it, he writes, “because in some situations, we cannot have both law and order.”

As you burrow further into such questions, they become metaphysical. Perhaps, you say, it is the myth of constitutional order that’s necessary to ensure an approximation of justice and order. Seidman dismisses that notion as “an extraordinarily cynical and elitist view,” which “assumes that it is legitimate, possible, and necessary for the cognoscenti to manipulate the masses.”

But “without a constitution, how would we know that a measure passed by Congress is a law and not just meaningless ranting by a bunch of pompous and superannuated poseurs?” Ah—that is an existential jurisprudential quandary, Seidman admits, but not one that a constitution can resolve. For a constitution to legitimate laws, the document itself must be legitimate, and that brings us back to the arguments we started with.

Without constitutional grounding, on what basis would court rulings be made?

Well, on what basis are they made now in cases involving limits on affirmative action, say, or the freedom to have gay sex? Those decisions, Seidman writes, are “at best tenuously tied to the constitutional text,” and reflect, instead, a mix of policy judgment, interpretation of tradition, moral boundaries, and so on.

Without a constitution, for better and for worse, he writes, “the Supreme Court would no longer be able to hide behind the pretense” of mere constitutional interpretation. “Instead it would have to defend openly the proposition that an elite, deliberative, and reason-giving body should have a check on the political branches.” In lieu of constitutional foundations, Seidman suggests that we sort through rationalist, existentialist, Rawlsian, and contestation theories, the last including the requisite that any foundation “must preserve the possibility of legitimate contestation” rather than prejudge outcomes.

It is the Constitution’s role as a point of contestation—a fulcrum, however historically arbitrary—that Seidman ambivalently championed in his 2001 book, Our Unsettled Constitution (Yale University Press). In the new book, his argument evolves in search of better, more honest grounds.

Seidman hopes his reasoning will elicit a glimmer of recognition from a populace already wary of how the Constitution is manipulated in the course of everyday policy discussions. “The abstract Constitution is said to be a symbol of national unity, while the actual Constitution does no more than mirror our national divisions,” he writes. “The situation is unstable and is ripe for exploitation by constitutional skeptics.”

Indeed it is, says Levinson, the Texas law professor. He has his own favored constitutional reforms—eliminating the Electoral College, creating nonrenewable 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices and a single six-year term for the president, allowing Congressional no-confidence votes in the president, letting members of Congress serve in cabinets. But he knows that in a new constitutional convention—attended by representatives selected by lottery, he proposes—some of those ideas would fly, others wouldn’t, and, in seeking best practices, all sides would inevitably have to make compromises.

If the political system is left as is, he says, “more and more power will accrue to an already very strong presidency, … or in some areas the courts will make decisions because Congress can’t.” The so-called fiscal cliff is a high-profile short-term example. But it’s the longer run Levinson is worried about. He finds “something ominous” in legislative stalemates followed by strong executive or court actions.

“If you’re concerned about the retirement system, medical care, immigration, … you’ve got to have legislation,” he says. And the legislative engine just isn’t running properly.

“We’ve got a public discourse going on entitlements or the debt,” says Levinson. But “there is currently no public discourse going on about the Constitution.”

Seidman knows that a cultural shift away from the Constitution seems unimaginable—but so, until recently, did a black president or gay marriage.

“I don’t want to be grandiose about this book,” he says. “I count myself lucky if my wife reads what I write, let alone starting a national conversation.” But “I do think what we’re talking about here is cultural change.” America is “at a stage where there is a growing realization that a lot of constitutional law is empty posturing.”

“A majority of the American people think justices use political considerations in deciding important cases,” and on both sides of the aisle the assumption is basic to the way confirmation hearings are run, he adds. Such cynicism “uneasily cohabits the same space as this reverence for the Constitution.”

“That’s not a stable situation.”

How does a new conversation about constitutional legitimacy begin? Well, maybe through books, Seidman says. But more immediately, “at the granular level, it is produced by ordinary individuals who challenge conventional wisdom.” When someone claims that something’s unconstitutional, he argues, “each of us should answer with a perfectly straightforward, but deeply subversive, two-word question: ‘So what?'”

Alexander C. Kafka is deputy managing editor of The My Chronicle Review.


This is why Democrats win in the blue states where minds and votes are for sale. These are not my words but the ones of  a Democratic whore in Washington. C Brewer

“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology. The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd. Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality. What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want. The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans. Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”


A renown Democratic consultant.

Post Navigation